Doctrine
An employee’s omission of past employment in a job application does not automatically constitute just cause for dismissal, particularly when the omission does not involve an overt act of dishonesty.
Facts
Nancy Claire Pit Celis (petitioner) was employed by Bank of Makati (A Savings Bank), Inc. (respondent) as an Account Officer starting July 15, 2013, and later transferred to the Legal and External Agency Department as an Administrative Officer on May 23, 2016.
In late 2017, the bank’s Human Resource Department received information regarding petitioner’s prior employment at the Rural Bank of Placer, where she was allegedly involved in an embezzlement case. Petitioner failed to disclose this employment in her job application to the respondent. The respondent then issued a Notice of Explanation to petitioner and placed her under preventive suspension for 30 days. Petitioner submitted a Written Explanation on December 21, 2017, admitting her omission but attributing it to excitement during the application process. She denied any involvement in embezzlement, claiming the allegations were mere hearsay.
The Bank terminated petitioner’s employment for (1) violation of the Bank’s Code of Conduct [“knowingly giving false or misleading information in applications for employment as a result of which employment is secured”], and (2) Serious Misconduct, Fraud or Willful Breach of Trust and Loss of Confidence under Article 297 [282] of the Labor Code.
Petitioner filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal, monetary claims, and damages against the Bank.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner Celis was validly dismissed by the bank
Ruling
NO. Doubts should be resolved in favor of labor. In this case, the Court of Appeals agreed with the Bank that the subject infraction applies against petitioner because, in not disclosing her past employment, she, in effect, gave the respondent false information that she never worked there. Meanwhile, the Labor Arbiter and National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) both agree that petitioner could not have committed the subject infraction as she only withheld information in her job application with respondent, an act not covered by the latter’s Code of Conduct.
Considering the different interpretations of the subject provision, the Court adopts the construction which favors petitioner. To be liable under the subject infraction, the employee must have performed an overt or positive act, i.e., giving false information in the employment application. Considering that petitioner did not actually state any false information in her job application but merely omitted to reflect her past employment with the Bank of Placer, she could not have committed the alleged infraction.
This is merely a case of an omission to disclose former employment in a job application, a fault which does not justify petitioner’s suspension and eventual termination from employment.